Best Practices: Should other (unrelated) applications be installed on a SQL server?

I was taught long ago that database servers should be database servers
and nothing more. I have been asked by my current employer to install
a new application on our SQL server because "we aren't using all of
it." In other words, they feel the server is under-utilized and want
to run other applications on it. I told them this was a bad idea and
that we should identify another server for the installation. That was
rejected and I've been challenged to "prove" that best practices are
to avoid loading unrelated applications on a database server.
Can anyone point me to a statement from Microsoft or some DB authority
that says as much? I have located dozens of bloggers who agree with
me but I can't really cite "CyberDawg420" as a reference when making
my argument. Any help at all is greatly appreciated!You seem to be trying to "prove" common sense.
How about this. Don't share unless there is absolutely no choice.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<jimguytrucker@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194452329.877280.250570@.v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I was taught long ago that database servers should be database servers
> and nothing more. I have been asked by my current employer to install
> a new application on our SQL server because "we aren't using all of
> it." In other words, they feel the server is under-utilized and want
> to run other applications on it. I told them this was a bad idea and
> that we should identify another server for the installation. That was
> rejected and I've been challenged to "prove" that best practices are
> to avoid loading unrelated applications on a database server.
> Can anyone point me to a statement from Microsoft or some DB authority
> that says as much? I have located dozens of bloggers who agree with
> me but I can't really cite "CyberDawg420" as a reference when making
> my argument. Any help at all is greatly appreciated!
>|||On Nov 7, 10:38 am, "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCrafts...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> You seem to be trying to "prove" common sense.
> How about this. Don't share unless there is absolutely no choice.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> <jimguytruc...@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1194452329.877280.250570@.v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I was taught long ago that database servers should be database servers
> > and nothing more. I have been asked by my current employer to install
> > a new application on our SQL server because "we aren't using all of
> > it." In other words, they feel the server is under-utilized and want
> > to run other applications on it. I told them this was a bad idea and
> > that we should identify another server for the installation. That was
> > rejected and I've been challenged to "prove" that best practices are
> > to avoid loading unrelated applications on a database server.
> > Can anyone point me to a statement from Microsoft or some DB authority
> > that says as much? I have located dozens of bloggers who agree with
> > me but I can't really cite "CyberDawg420" as a reference when making
> > my argument. Any help at all is greatly appreciated!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You are spot on with the "common sense" comment. I'm frustrated
because it is obvious to me but they want "evidence." The only way to
PROVE I'm right is to do what they ask, slow down the SQL server, and
create numerous headaches. I would be willing to do this to make my
point but I'm the one who would have to clean up the aftermath.